raerae1980:ginandbacon: I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

Id have no problem stomping on it. Im an atheist and I have doubts on if he even existed.

CheetahOlivetti:So Townhall blows, but it was a stupid assignment. I wouldn't stomp on a piece of paper with my child's name on it either. Too bad the derpers will use this as an example of Christian oppression.

eraser8:Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Not really. It's a cause de jure, as are LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, racism and Washington politics. Wait a few weeks and other de jure issue will cycle through MSNBC. Wait a few years and we'll be right back here. You know, circle of life and all./Whatever sells, sells.

CheetahOlivetti:So Townhall blows, but it was a stupid assignment. I wouldn't stomp on a piece of paper with my child's name on it either. Too bad the derpers will use this as an example of Christian oppression.

But would you be able to explain why you wouldn't step on your child's name? Because that part was the point of the assignment, you know...

raerae1980:ginandbacon: I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

Id have no problem stomping on it. Im an atheist and I have doubts on if he even existed.

Happy Hours:I read an article from CBS and the Palm Beach Post. Those aren't exactly Al Jazeera, the BBC or even the PBS News Hour, but I do consider them to be news outlets more respectable than Townhall or WND.

I'm not too sure about the CBS affiliate in West Palm, they got bought out by Sinclair who has been known for having a pro-Republican bias in the past.

SkinnyHead:The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

True. It would have made more sense to use the American flag since there is a better chance the students would be American. And for many, you would have a similar outcome.

eraser8:Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

There's really no way to "win" the argument when it comes to religion or politics. There's no persuasion, no charitable way to talk about the point when you meet someone who thinks differently than you on those matters, regardless of your own belief system when it comes to religion or politics. You can talk about them amongst friends just fine... but in company where you're expected to be polite because you don't know those people, religion or politics is probably best left unstated.

/of course, welcome to fark and all that, it's always okay to insult people of the other persuasion or something

ginandbacon:I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

Nobody was required to step on the paper. In fact, the lesson specifically contemplates that students will refuse to step on the paper. The ensuing discussion focuses on why.

Notably absent from the article, in fact, is any mention of whether or not any students actually did choose to step on the paper. Given that this is a right-wing ZOMG WER BEAN PERSECOOTED propaganda piece, it is more probable than not that nobody did. The author would surely focus on such a fact in order to generate more outrage.

Sounds like the students were not "forced" to step on the paper at all. The point of the exercise was to get the students to think about why they didn't want to step on the paper. Sounds like a potentially interesting exercise, but conducted in a ham-handed way.

Assuming that a Town hall article is even loosely based on reality.

I have seen no other source that quoted the textbook and the assignment's purpose.

Happy Hours:FloydA: Happy Hours: The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus - and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.

Oh, that's easy. They would be the target of terrorist attacks and called "racist" if they had told the students to write Mohammed.

Also, "Mohammed" is harder to spell than Jesus and most of the student would probably have been unable to do so.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets. Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

Weaver95:Happy Hours:To quote one of my favorite movies "It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response". Emotion is not intellect. It is not learning. There are hundreds of ways to demonstrate that symbols are very powerful things without targeting the students religions - or patriotism - and asking them to denigrate either.

But if you REALLY want to get someone's attention, then jump starting their emotions is a good way to go about doing it. the tricky part is calming them down and getting them back to talking about things in a rational manner. it's a valid approach and it can work...but it's not easy to pull off.

Remember the spider that lived outside your window? Orange body, green legs. Watched her build a web all summer, then one day there's a big egg in it. The egg hatched...

I'm sure they mean it in a derogatory manner, but it's pretty ironic when you consider that the Lamb of God (aka Jesus Christ) is the figure in the Bible who opens the Seals of the Apocalypse, and is responsible for summoning the Horsemen for the final Revelation.

rkiller1:eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Not really. It's a cause de jure, as are LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, racism and Washington politics. Wait a few weeks and other de jure issue will cycle through MSNBC. Wait a few years and we'll be right back here. You know, circle of life and all./Whatever sells, sells.

Note: "De Jure" is a Latin term that means "concerning the law." "Du Jour" is a French phrase means "of the day" or "made for a particular time."

mekki:SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

True. It would have made more sense to use the American flag since there is a better chance the students would be American. And for many, you would have a similar outcome.

There's more discussion to be had when everybody in the class does not look up to the symbol in question, like say an atheist student who decides not to step on the paper.

Plus it's probably cheaper and quicker to have each student write JESUS on a piece of paper then it is to draw or print out hundreds of copies of an American flag.

The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.

eraser8:Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Holdover, I think, from the founding period. Some of the original colonies were actually founded for the purpose of the members exercising their religious freedom (but not anyone else's). But the principle of religious neutrality got generalized and institutionalized in the Constitution. Quite a difference, when you think about it, from almost every other nation/culture on the planet, where there is generally an official State religion (this even in societies where other religions are allowed). America is essentially unique in this regard. This actually makes sense in terms of the founders' deism.

Way too much blood has been spilled over the ages in the name of religion. This generally happens when one set of religious beliefs attains a lock on the power of the State. The answer is to keep them institutionally separate.

That does NOT mean getting the vapors every time some city councilman or senator professes that he is an evangelical Christian or even a Muslim - or a Mormon. Individual belief is NOT the same as institutional support. But trying to explain the nuance of that to fundamentalist atheists is generally a lost cause. (I know this for a fact: my wife and I go to periodic atheist hookups. Some of these people are more irrational that fundie Xians.)

eraser8:Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

Complex historical reasons. A lot of it is tied up into what gets to count in a historically Protestant public square as "legitimate religion" in legal terms and what gets counted instead as "Popery" (Catholicism), "Paganism"(Amerindian traditions), or "Cults" (Mormons). There is a vast literature on it. Good case in point would be the Mormon tradition.

Weaver95:SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that. it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

Except that nobody was required to step on the paper. And TrollHead's premise is false anyway. The exercise is certainly instructive even for students with no reverence for Jesus. Let's assume one fact, and infer another:

1) Let's assume there was at least one student present with no reverence for Jesus. I would say infer this, but the article doesn't mention how many students were present. But it's reasonable to assume that in any normal sized class at a secular university there's at least one non-Christian.

2) Let's infer from the article's failure to report whether anyone actually did step on the paper that no one did. It is a strong inference given that the article's sole purpose is to generate outrage. Had any students stepped on the paper, the article would have emphasized that point to make people madder.

Given those two facts, it is certainly instructive to that student that s/he chose not to step on the paper. It is likewise instructive for other students who do revere Jesus to learn why those who don't revere Jesus chose not to step on it.

Holdover, I think, from the founding period. Some of the original colonies were actually founded for the purpose of the members exercising their religious freedom (but not anyone else's). But the principle of religious neutrality got generalized and institutionalized in the Constitution. Quite a difference, when you think about it, from almost every other nation/culture on the planet, where there is generally an official State religion (this even in societies where other religions are allowed). America is essentially unique in this regard. This actually makes sense in terms of the founders' deism.

Way too much blood has been spilled over the ages in the name of religion. This generally happens when one set of religious beliefs attains a lock on the power of the State. The answer is to keep them institutionally separate.

That does NOT mean getting the vapors every time some city councilman or senator professes that he is an evangelical Christian or even a Muslim - or a Mormon. Individual belief is NOT the same as institutional support. But trying to explain the nuance of that to fundamentalist atheists is generally a lost cause. (I know this for a fact: my wife and I go to periodic atheist hookups. Some of these people are more irrational that fundie Xians.)

BTW, I'm shocked and appalled that we have not yet seen the old and busted "We're being oppressed" pie chart meme yet. Come ON, Farkers, you're slipping!!!!

SkinnyHead:The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

As an atheist, I'd have absolutely zero problem saying some ritual words about a two-millenia-dead prophet of a non-existent deity, its empty symbolism. So no, they wouldn't be benefiting from that.

I am a huge grammar nazi but seriously? Respond to the point, not the typing. People post from phones and whatnot which tends to lead to a lack of apostrophes and such. None of it leads to a lack of understanding. If you didn't get the point raerae1980was making, that's on you and you should be ashamed.

eraser8:Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Because people go farking crazy when they feel their belief systems are threatened.This goes beyond standard concepts of religion and extends into beliefs about economics, gender roles and other areas where most people aren't operating on rationally derived information as much as they are operating on beliefs derived from heritage and heuristics.

Mrtraveler01:Happy Hours: I read an article from CBS and the Palm Beach Post. Those aren't exactly Al Jazeera, the BBC or even the PBS News Hour, but I do consider them to be news outlets more respectable than Townhall or WND.

I'm not too sure about the CBS affiliate in West Palm, they got bought out by Sinclair who has been known for having a pro-Republican bias in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Controversies

You should stick to the palm beach post if you want liberal bias then.

bugontherug:Weaver95: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that. it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

Except that nobody was required to step on the paper. And TrollHead's premise is false anyway. The exercise is certainly instructive even for students with no reverence for Jesus. Let's assume one fact, and infer another:

1) Let's assume there was at least one student present with no reverence for Jesus. I would say infer this, but the article doesn't mention how many students were present. But it's reasonable to assume that in any normal sized class at a secular university there's at least one non-Christian.

2) Let's infer from the article's failure to report whether anyone actually did step on the paper that no one did. It is a strong inference given that the article's sole purpose is to generate outrage. Had any students stepped on the paper, the article would have emphasized that point to make people madder.

Given those two facts, it is certainly instructive to that student that s/he chose not to step on the paper. It is likewise instructive for other students who do revere Jesus to learn why those who don't revere Jesus chose not to step on it.

the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

You love this lesson precisely because it was ill-advised and bothered someone whose offense you take pleasure in.Fortunately, such an attitude isn't necessary to make the same point.